Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 323–344 | Cite as

Sunk costs and the speed of market selection

Regular Article

Abstract

This paper studies the influence of sunk costs on industry evolution using the stylized pure selection model developed by Metcalfe. It is shown that sunk costs influence industry dynamics by reducing the speed of the replicator dynamics of competitive selection. Based on the theoretical model, we argue that sunk costs should lead to a reduction of market share reallocation dynamics and a larger share of stable firms. We validate these predictions empirically, finding that higher-sunk-cost industries have a larger share of stable firms and display lower market share dynamics. The result has practical implications for the interpretation of productivity decompositions.

Keywords

Competition Intensity of competition Firm growth Productivity decompositions 

JEL Classification

L11 D24 B52 

References

  1. Asplund M (2000) What fraction of a capital investment is sunk costs. J Ind Econ 48(3):287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch DB (1991) New firm survival and the technological regime. Rev Econ Stat 73(3):441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baily M, Bartelsman EJ, Haltiwanger JC (1996) Downsizing and productivity growth: myth or reality?. Small Bus Econ 8(4):259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartelsman E, Haltiwanger J, Scarpetta S (2004) Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-114/3, Tinbergen Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Bottazzi G, Dosi G , Jacoby N, Secchi A, Tamagni F (2010) Corporate performances and market selection. Some comparative evidence. Ind Corp Chang 19:1953–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bravo-Biosca A, Criscuolo C, Menon C (2013) What drives the dynamics of business growth? OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 1, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Breschi S, Malerba F, Orsenigo L (2000) Technological regimes and schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Econ J 110:388–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabral L (1995) Sunk costs, firm size and firm growth. J Ind Econ 43(2):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantner U (2002) Heterogenit?t, technologischer fortschritt und spillover-effekte. In: Lehmann-Waffenschmidt M (ed) Studien zur Evolutorischen ? konomik V. Duncker & Humblodt, Berlin , pp 15–40Google Scholar
  10. Caves RE, Porter ME (1977) From entry barriers to mobility barriers. Q J Econ 91:241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coad A (2007) Testing the principle of ‘growth of the fitter’: the relationship between profits and firm growth. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 18(3):370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coad A, Hölzl W (2012) ‘Firm growth: empirical analysis’. In: Dietrich M, Krafft J (eds) Handbook on the economics and theory of the firm. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Disney R, Haskel J, Heden Y (2003) Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing. Econ J 113:666–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixit A (1989) Entry and exit decisions under uncertainty. J Polit Econ 97:620–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dosi G (2007) Statistical regularities in the evolution of industries: a guide through some evidence and challenges for the theory. In: Malerba F, Brusoni S (eds) Perspectives on Innovation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaton BC, Lipsey RG (1980) Exit barriers are entry barriers: the durability of captial as barrier to entry. Bell J Econ 11:721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farinas JC, Ruano S (2005) Firm productivity, heterogeneity, sunk costs and market selection. Int J Ind Organ 23:505–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gschwandtner A, Lambson VE (2012) Sunk costs, depreciation, and industry dynamics. Rev Econ Stat 94:1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan CJ (1998) Aggregate productivity growth: lessons from microeconomic evidence. NBER working paper 6803.Google Scholar
  20. Garnsey E, Stam E, Heffernan P (2006) New firm growth: exploring processes and paths. Ind Innov 13(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griliches Z, Regev H (1995) Firm productivity in Israeli industry 1979-1988. J Econom 65(1):175–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofer H, Winter-Ebmer R (2003) Longitudinal data from social security records in Austria. Schmollers Jahrbuch 123:587–591Google Scholar
  23. Hölzl W, Lang P (2011) Unternehmensdynamik, exportstatus und umsatzproduktivität. WIFO Monatsberichte 84(11):743–754Google Scholar
  24. Hölzl W (2014) Persistence, survival, and growth: a closer look at 20 years of fast-growing firms in Austria. Ind Corp Chang 23:199–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Isaksson A (2009) Structural change and productivity growth: A review with implications for developing countries. Research and statistics branch working paper 08/2009, UNIDO, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  26. Klemperer (1995) Competition when consumers have switching costs: an overview with applications to industrial organization, macroeconomics, and international trade. Rev Econ Stud 62:515–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krafft J, Salies E (2008) The cost of switching internet providers in the broadband industry, or why ADSL has diffused faster than other innovative technologies: evidence from the French case. Res Policy 37:706–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lambson V, Jensen F (1998) Sunk costs and firm value variability: theory and evidence. Am Econ Rev 88:307–313Google Scholar
  29. Malerba F, Orsenigo L (1995) Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Camb J Econ 19:47–65Google Scholar
  30. Melitz M, Polanec S (2009) Dynamic olley-pakes decomposition with entry and exit. Discussion paper, University of Lubljana Working Paper no. 03/09, forthcoming RAND J EconGoogle Scholar
  31. Metcalfe JS (1994) Competition, Fisher’s principle and increasing returns in the selection process. J Evol Econ 4:327–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metcalfe JS (1998) Evolutionary economics. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalfe JS (2002) On the optimality of the competitive process: Kimura’s theorem and MarketDynamics. J Bioecon 4:2109–133Google Scholar
  34. Mueller DC, Supina D (2002) Goodwill capital. Small Bus Econ 19:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Nishida M, Petrin A, Polanec S (2014) Explaining reallocation’s apparent negative contribution to growth. J Product Anal 42:187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olley G, Pakes A (1996) The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64(6):1263–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pages C, Pierre G, Scarpetta S (2009) Job creation in Latin America and the Carribbean: recent trends and policy challenges. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Papke L, Wooldridge J (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. J Appl Econom 11:619–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramey V, Shapiro M (2001) Displaced capital. A study of aerospace plant closings. J Polit Econ 109: 958–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santarelli E, Vivarelli M (2007) Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth. Ind Corp Chang 16(3):455–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silverberg G, Dosi G, Orsenigo L (1988) Innovation, diversity and diffusion: a self-organization model. Econ J 98:1032–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stiglbauer A (2003) Job and worker flows in Austria 1978-1998. Ph.D. thesis, University of LinzGoogle Scholar
  44. Sutton J (1998) Technology and market structure. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  45. Winter SG (1984) Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. J Econ Behav Organ 5:287–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations